S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

PHILIPPINE CLITIC PRONOUNS AND

THE LOWER PHASE EDGE
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
Theodore Levin

Abstract: Pronominal paradigms in Philippine-type Austronesian lan-
guages show a robust and curious gap: in transitive clauses, pivot
arguments and nonpivot agents may have bound pronominal forms,
appearing as second-position clitics, but pronominal nonpivot themes
must be full, free pronouns. This gap is instructive regarding the orga-
nization of the lower phase edge. As cliticization involves a syntactic
dependency between the host and argument position and all syntactic
dependencies are constrained by phases, the gap is explained if pivots
and nonpivot agents are specifiers of the phase head, making them
the only DPs accessible for operations from outside of the lower phase.

Keywords: phase, clitic pronouns, extraction asymmetry, Austronesian
voice system, Philippine-type languages

1 Introduction

Since the identification of a cyclic boundary that separates a lower,
thematic domain—often called the vP phase (Chomsky 2000, 2001;
see also Chomsky 1986)—from a higher domain of the clause, more
recent investigations have sought to articulate the fine structure of this
lower phase edge (e.g., Pylkka¨nen 2008, Travis 2010, Legate 2014,
Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou, and Scha¨fer 2015, Harley 2017). Mate-
rial within the lower domain is inaccessible for syntactic operations
from outside of the domain, unless that material occupies the phase
edge—the phase head and its specifier(s) (Chomsky 2000). One such
operation is movement. Movement out of the lower phase must stop
at its edge.

In this squib, we focus on identifying the precise position of the
external argument with respect to the edge of this lower phase. Broadly,
two views have been proposed in previous literature: (a) the external
argument is generated as the specifier of the phase head, with any
movements to the phase edge landing in another specifier position
(e.g., Chomsky 2000, 2001, Nissenbaum 2000, Legate 2003, 2014,
Aldridge 2004, 2008, Rackowski and Richards 2005) and (b) the exter-
nal argument is generated in a projection below the phase head (Collins

For helpful comments and discussion, we thank Edith Aldridge, Bob Blust,
Kenyon Branan, Ting-chun Chen, Victoria Chen, Henrison Hsieh, Ed Keenan,
Hsiu-chuan Liao, Paulina Lyskawa, Masha Polinsky, Omer Preminger, Alexan-
der D. Smith, Coppe van Urk, and two anonymous reviewers for LI. An earlier
version of this squib appeared as Erlewine and Levin 2018. This research is
supported by the Singapore Ministry of Education through grants FY2016-
FRC1-007 ‘‘Theory and Variation in Extraction Marking and Subject Extrac-
tion Asymmetries’’ and MOE2017-T2-2-094 ‘‘Subjecthood in Southeast Asia:
Description and Theory,’’ which are gratefully acknowledged.

The following abbreviations are used in glosses: AV (cid:2) Actor Voice, LV
(cid:2) Locative Voice, PV (cid:2) Patient Voice, ACC (cid:2) accusative, DAT (cid:2) dative,
DFLT (cid:2) default, GEN (cid:2) genitive, NOM (cid:2) nominative, AUX (cid:2) auxiliary, FUT
(cid:2) future, IRR (cid:2) irrealis, NEG (cid:2) negation, PL (cid:2) plural, PFV (cid:2) perfective, PRF
(cid:2) perfect, PROX (cid:2) proximate, SG (cid:2) singular. Some morpheme glosses and
translations are modified from their sources for uniformity.

Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 52, Number 2, Spring 2021
408–425
(cid:3) 2019 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published under
a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00374

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

409

2005 for passives, Gallego 2008, N. Richards 2010:14ff., Coon, Mateo
Pedro, and Preminger 2014). These two options are illustrated in (1).
XP represents the lower phase, together with movement of another
argument to the phase edge. The double line delimits the material that
is inaccessible to syntactic operations from outside the XP phase.

(1) Two proposals for the lower phase XP, with movement to the

phase edge
a.

DP
agent

. . . t . . .

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

. . . t . . .

We offer a new argument for the structure in (1a), for a variety
of Austronesian languages, from patterns of attested and unattested
clitic pronouns. As we will review in section 2, in transitive clauses
many Philippine-type Austronesian languages have two second-posi-
tion clitic pronoun series, corresponding to “pivot” arguments and
“nonpivot” agents; bound pronominal forms for nonpivot theme/pa-
tient arguments in such clauses are curiously absent. This fact is com-
mon to a wide range of Austronesian languages and has also been
hypothesized for reconstructions of Proto-Austronesian. We contend
that this paradigmatic gap is not accidental. Cliticization involves a
movement relationship from a DP’s argument position, within the
lower phase, to the clitic’s host in second position, outside of the lower
phase. Under the organization of the phase edge as in (1a), to be
elaborated in section 3, the pivot argument and nonpivot agent are
precisely the only two types of DPs that are accessible for syntactic
operations from outside of the lower phase. In section 4, we conclude
by discussing an apparent counterexample.

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

410

S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

2 Voice Systems and Clitic Pronouns

Many Austronesian languages exhibit what has been termed a voice
system. Key characteristics of such voice systems are described in (2),
taken from Erlewine, Levin, and Van Urk 2017:376.

(2) Common characteristics of voice systems

a. A privileged argument: One argument is designated the
pivot and is realized in a particular morphological form
and/or structural position, regardless of its original gram-
matical function or thematic role.

b. Articulated voice morphology: Morphology on the verb
varies with the choice of pivot, including options for
taking certain oblique arguments as pivots.

c. Extraction restriction: A¯ -extraction (wh-movement, rel-
ativization, topicalization, etc.) is limited to the pivot
argument.

d. Marking of nonpivot agents: Nonpivot agents are mor-
phologically marked, often coinciding with the form of
possessors (i.e., genitive case).

Consider the Squliq Atayal examples in (3). These sentences all
describe Yuraw cooking taro, but they vary in word order and nominal
and verbal morphology. In each example, one argument of the verb,
which we call the pivot (in italics), is in sentence-final position and
preceded by qu, which we gloss as nominative case. Voice morphology
on the verb (boldfaced) correlates with the choice of pivot argument.
Note that nonpivot arguments are also case-marked: nonpivot agents
are genitive (also the case for possessors), whereas nonpivot themes
are unmarked, glossed here as accusative.1

(3) a. Cyux p-hapuy

knobuy qu Yuraw.
AUX AV.IRR-cook taro(ACC) DAT kitchen NOM Yuraw
‘Yuraw cooks taro in the kitchen.’

(Actor Voice; AV)

sehuy

b. Puy-un na Yuraw qu

sehuy.

cook-PV GEN Yuraw NOM taro
‘Yuraw cooked taro.’

c. Hpuy-an na Yuraw sehuy

(Patient Voice; PV)
knobuy.
cook-LV GEN Yuraw taro(ACC) NOM kitchen
‘Yuraw cooks taro in the kitchen.’

(Locative Voice;
LV)

(Squliq Atayal: Erlewine field notes)

Pronominals in Squliq Atayal can be expressed as free-standing
pronouns or as second-position clitic pronouns. Clitic pronouns can

1 Many Philippine-type languages have previously been described as ex-
hibiting an ergative/absolutive alignment. See especially Aldridge 2004 for
such an analysis of Seediq (Atayalic), and see Chen 2017 and Erlewine, Levin,
and Van Urk 2017 for overviews and discussion of the ergative hypothesis.
The theoretical import of this squib does not change if the ergative hypothesis,
especially that in Aldridge 2004, is adopted.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

411

be used for pivots (4a) and nonpivot agents (4b), but full pronouns
must be used for nonpivot themes (5). Notice that the clitic pronouns
are hosted by the auxiliary in these examples and therefore appear
preverbally, unlike regular DP arguments. In particular, the first person
nonpivot theme in (5) is a full pronoun, kuzing, following the verb.
In examples without an auxiliary, clitic pronouns encliticize to the
verb.

(4) a. Nyux(cid:2)saku m-aniq sehuy.
AUX(cid:2)NOM.1SG AV-eat
b. Nyux(cid:2)maku niq-un qu

taro(ACC)

sehuy.

AUX(cid:2)GEN.1SG eat-PV NOM taro
‘I am eating taro.’
(Squliq Atayal: Erlewine field notes)

(5) Wal(cid:2)simu m-ita kuzing.

AUX(cid:2)2PL AV-see 1SG(ACC)
‘You(PL) saw me.’
(Squliq Atayal: Erlewine field notes)

One way to explain this gap would be to claim that bound forms
do not exist for accusative pronouns. But such an approach fails to
explain the same gap in languages such as Tagalog, where both non-
pivot themes and nonpivot agents may bear identical case markers.2
This is seen in (6).

(6) a. Naka-kita ang lalaki ng ibon.
AV.PFV-see NOM man GEN bird
‘The boy saw a bird.’

b. Na-kita

ng lalaki ang ibon.
PV.PFV-see GEN boy NOM bird
‘The/A boy saw the bird.’
(Tagalog: Henrison Hsieh, pers. comm.)

Although both nonpivot themes (‘bird’ in (6a)) and nonpivot agents
(‘boy’ in (6b)) are in genitive case, corresponding pronominal forms do
not behave the same. Consider the genitive proximate demonstrative
pronoun nito ‘this one’, which exists both as a second-position clitic
and as a full pronoun and can be used for both animates and inanimates.
In (7a), nito is the nonpivot agent of a PV clause and can appear as
a second-position clitic, hosted by negation, or as a full pronoun, in
the postverbal field. In contrast, nito is a nonpivot theme in an AV
clause in (7b) and can only occur as a full pronoun.
(7) a. Ang lalaki ang hindi (cid:2)(cid:2)nito(cid:3)

na-kita

NOM boy NOM NEG GEN.PROX PV.PFV-see

2 As an anonymous reviewer reminds us, there is, however, a further
interaction with specificity for nonpivot themes: specific nonpivot themes may
be in oblique (dative) case. See Latrouite 2011, Sabbagh 2016, and references
there for discussion. However, as the reviewer also notes, this does not weaken
the strength of the argument we develop based on nito in (7).

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

412

S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

(cid:2)nito(cid:3).
GEN.PROX
‘It’s the boy that this one didn’t see.’

b. Ang lalaki ang hindi (cid:2)*(cid:2)nito(cid:3)

naka-kita

GEN.PROX AV.PFV-see

NOM boy NOM NEG
(cid:2)nito(cid:3).
GEN.PROX
‘It’s the boy who didn’t see this one.’
(Tagalog: Henrison Hsieh, pers. comm.)

The contrast in (7) shows that the lack of a clitic pronoun for a nonpivot
theme cannot be reduced to surface morphological case. The proximate
demonstrative takes the same genitive form nito as a nonpivot agent or
nonpivot theme, but only the nonpivot agent can use the homophonous
bound form, hosted by negation in (7a). The contrast here also forms
a poverty-of-the-stimulus argument: given the optionality in nito place-
ment available in (7a), what input leads the child to determine that
the same form is only available as a full pronoun and not a clitic if
used for a nonpivot theme (7b)?

Similar facts in closely related languages lead to the generaliza-

tion in (8).

(8) Generalization

In transitive clauses, second-position clitic pronouns in Phil-
ippine-type languages are limited to pivot arguments and
nonpivot agents.

A couple of clarifications are immediately in order. First, Philippine-
type languages refers to those voice system languages with two or
more different Non-Actor Voices (Blust 2010:307), which commonly
have case markers and second-position pronominal clitics (Wolff 1996,
Himmelmann 2002, 2005, Ross 2002, Blust 2010, 2013, Chen and
McDonnell 2019). This comprises the Austronesian languages of the
Philippines, most of Taiwan, northern Borneo and Sulawesi, and Mad-
agascar. Second, the claim in (8) is not that Philippine-type languages
necessarily have clitics for both pivots and nonpivot agents. For exam-
ple, Malagasy has bound pronominal forms only for nonpivot agents;
there are no clitic pronouns for pivots in the language (Paul 1996,
Keenan and Polinsky 1998, Zribi-Hertz and Mbolatianavalona 1999).
To our knowledge, the generalization in (8) has never been explic-
itly stated before, despite seeming to be common knowledge among
Austronesianists. As Hsiu-chuan Liao (pers. comm.) notes, “It seems
true that linguists working on Philippine-type languages simply as-
sume that everyone knows that these languages have two sets of clitic
pronouns: (1) genitive/ergative; (2) nominative/absolutive.” For ex-
ample, Billings and Kaufman (2004) offer an in-depth study of Philip-
pine-type clitic pronoun patterns that discusses the genitive and nomi-
native series without commenting on the consistent lack of other types.
Descriptions of Philippine-type languages similarly describe two clitic

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

413

pronoun series—one for pivots and one for nonpivot agents—without
comment. Nonetheless, this gap has occasionally been mentioned in
discussions of specific languages. In their survey of nine Formosan
languages, Huang et al. (1999:167) give a table that explicitly indicates
the lack of accusative (nonpivot theme) clitic pronouns for all nine
languages.

The generalization is also supported indirectly by work on the
historical reconstruction of Proto-Austronesian (e.g., Ross 2002, 2006,
2009, Blust 2015, Aldridge 2015, 2016). Ross (2002:36) in particular
explicitly notes that reconstructions of the genitive and nominative
clitic pronoun series are motivated, but there is again no accusative
(nonpivot theme) clitic pronoun series.

The generalization in (8) also extends to languages with clitic
doubling of full DP arguments. For example, in Nanwang Puyuma
both nonpivot agents and nonpivot themes are in genitive case, marked
by kan for personal names and kana for definite common nouns (Teng
2008, Chen 2017). But as Chen (2017:15–16) notes, the two types of
arguments differ in their clitic-doubling behavior: nonpivot agents
must be cross-referenced by a corresponding clitic pronoun on the
verb, whereas nonpivot themes cannot be doubled by a pronoun.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

(9) a. Tu(cid:2)trakaw-aw na

GEN.3(cid:2)steal-PV NOM car

palridring kan Siber.
GEN Siber

Siber kana palridring.

b. Tr(cid:2)em(cid:3)akaw i
AV-steal
‘Siber stole the car.’
(Nanwang Puyuma: Victoria Chen, pers. comm.)

NOM Siber GEN car

Crucially, we will maintain that cliticization and clitic doubling are,
for the purposes of syntax, driven by the same operation(s). This is
discussed in detail in section 3.

Additionally, as previously discussed in Erlewine, Levin, and Van
Urk 2017, the key properties of Austronesian voice systems (2) can
also be found in Dinka (Nilotic; South Sudan). Dinka clauses are
generally verb-second, with an auxiliary or lexical verb in second
position, preceded by the pivot. Argument cross-referencing in Dinka
also obeys the generalization in (8). The verb or auxiliary in second
position doubles a nonpronominal pivot with a prefix/proclitic. This
is a`- in (10). If there is a pronominal nonpivot agent, it will appear
as a suffix/enclitic on the second-position head. This appears as -ku`
¨
in (10b). In (11a), the nonpivot agent combines with the default PRF.PV
auxiliary cı´..i to become ca´.
(10) a. Peˆen a`-nhi[´[r

Boˆl.

town 3SG-love.PV Bol.GEN
‘Bol loves the town.’

b. Peˆen a`-nhia´r-ku`
¨

town 3SG-love.PV-1PL
‘We love the town.’
(Dinka: Van Urk 2018:958)

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

414

S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

(11) a. Mo`c a`-ca´

i√.
tãˆ
¨
man 3SG-PRF.PV.2SG see
‘You have seen the man.’
(Dinka: Coppe van Urk, pers. comm.)
i√.
in tãˆ
yãˆ
¨
¨
man 3SG-PRF.AV 2SG see
‘The man has seen you.’
(Dinka: Van Urk 2018:956)

b. Mo`c a`-ce´

Notably for our purposes, nonpivot themes must instead use full pro-
nouns, as in (11b).

Finally, in all of these languages with two clitic series, a pivot
and a nonpivot agent can be simultaneously cliticized onto the same
host. See (12) for examples from Squliq Atayal, Tagalog, and Nan-
wang Puyuma. Example (10b) shows this for Dinka.

(12) a. Nyux(cid:2)saku(cid:2)nha

kt-an.

AUX(cid:2)NOM.1SG(cid:2)GEN.3PL look-LV
‘They are looking at me.’
(Squliq Atayal: Erlewine field notes)

b. Bakit hindi(cid:2)mo(cid:2)ako

tu-tulung-an?
why NEG(cid:2)GEN.2SG(cid:2)NOM.1SG FUT-help-LV
‘Why won’t you help me?’
(Tagalog: Schachter and Otanes 1972:169)

c. Tu(cid:2)ka-aw(cid:2)ku

kan nanali.

GEN.3(cid:2)tell-PV(cid:2)NOM.1SG GEN my.mother
‘My mother told me.’
(Nanwang Puyuma: Teng 2008:148)

3 Proposal

The generalization in (8)—that in transitive clauses only pivot argu-
ments and nonpivot agent arguments can appear as second-position
clitic pronouns—can be productively understood as reflecting the or-
ganization of the lower phase edge. We adopt a phase-theoretic con-
ception of Austronesian-type voice systems whereby the pivot argu-
ment is necessarily the highest DP in the lower phase of the clause
(Aldridge 2004, Rackowski and Richards 2005), reflecting the intui-
tion that the pivot argument occupies a designated and privileged posi-
tion in the clause (Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis 1992).

We propose that in Philippine-type languages with pivot and non-
pivot agent pronouns that are second-position clitics, the agent is base-
generated as a specifier of the phase head. Here we refer to this phase
as vP, but this is not crucial; for example, it may be VoiceP as in
Legate 2008. In Actor Voice (AV), the external argument is the sole
DP specifier at the phase edge (13a). In Non-Actor Voices (NAVs),
the pivot DP moves to an outer specifier of the phase head (13b),
which can be thought of as the effect of an EPP feature on v (Aldridge
2004, 2008) or object shift (Rackowski and Richards 2005).

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

415

(13)

DP
agent
pivot

NAV ((cid:2)(1a))
vP

DP
pivot

. . .

DP
agent

. . . t . . .

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

One famous property of voice system languages is their pivot-
only extraction restriction (e.g., Keenan and Comrie 1977), in (2c).
The organization of the lower phase edge in (13) potentially allows
for higher probes to attract either the pivot or the agent in NAVs. We
follow Aldridge’s (2004, 2017) proposal by which the probe triggering
A¯ -movement to the CP edge will target the closest DP and therefore
will be unable to skip the pivot in NAV clauses (13b). This probe
stops probing after it finds one satisfactory goal: the pivot DP. This
approach also predicts that, given a more articulated probe, extraction
of a nonpivot agent may be possible. Nonpivot agent extraction is, for
example, attested in Bikol (Erlewine and Lim 2019).

Now, we turn to the derivation of second-position clitic pronouns,
maintaining the following positions. First, recall that we adopt the
view that cliticization and clitic doubling are, for the purposes of syn-
tax, driven by the same operation(s), which we discuss below. Second,
we posit that the second-position clitic pronouns discussed here are
hosted structurally higher than the lower phase edge, on a head that
could be called Aux or T. In cases where the clitic pronouns appear
to be hosted on the verb, the verb itself has undergone head movement
to Aux/T. Finally, and most importantly, we maintain that clitic dou-
bling involves movement. Aux/T probes for accessible goals for clitic
doubling, allowing for attraction of multiple goals. Clitics then move
from the position occupied by the noun phrase they double, to the host
Aux/T.

For concreteness, we illustrate the process of clitic doubling
through the “Copy, Reduce, and M-Merger” derivation proposed and
discussed in Harizanov 2014, Kramer 2014, Baker 2016, Baker and

416

S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

Kramer 2018, and Sikuku, Diercks, and Marlo 2018. Under this ap-
proach, the entire noun phrase (DP) is first copied to a specifier of
the hosting head (Aux/T)3—in (14a)—which then must undergo M-
Merger (Matushansky 2006) to form a morphophonological word with
its host head (14c).4 (Step (14b) is discussed below.)

(14) Clitic doubling by Copy, Reduce, and M-Merger

a. Copy (move) DP

Aux/TP

. . .

Aux/T

. . .

b. Reduce DP to D

Aux/TP

Aux/T

. . .

3 Many other proposals for clitic doubling also involve movement, but
vary as to exactly what moves: for example, the head of the doubled noun
phase (e.g., Roberts 2010, Preminger 2019) or a clitic base-generated as a
specifier of the doubled noun phrase (e.g., Torrego 1988, Arregi and Nevins
2012). The derivation in (14) is provided for illustrative purposes, but the data
presented here can be captured under any of these proposals so long as this
movement is subject to Phase Impenetrability.

Similarly, an alternative family of analyses claims that clitics are base-
generated at the host site and establish a relationship with their doubled DP
(e.g., Sportiche 1996; see also Travis 2006). If this relationship is also subject
to Phase Impenetrability, the present data would also be amenable to such
approaches.

4 As discussed by these authors—most explicitly by Baker and Kramer
(2016, 2018:1050)—particular specifier positions (or corresponding EPP re-
quirements) can be specified to allow material of only a certain form. Requiring
that specifiers, if present, undergo M-Merger with the head is one such require-
ment.

The final surface position of individual clitics is subject to reordering by
various morphophonological considerations. See, for example, Billings and
Kaufman 2004 for an overview of factors that determine clitic position.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

417

c. M-Merger of D and Aux / T
Aux/TP

Aux/T (cid:3) D

. . .

If the targeted DP is itself a D head without a restrictor—in other
words, a weak pronoun (Postal 1966, Elbourne 2001, 2005)—it will
undergo M-Merger with Aux/T directly (14a,c). The lower copy of
the D/DP will then be unpronounced due to chain reduction, as the
equivalent object is pronounced higher in the chain (see, e.g., Nunes
2004, Landau 2006). This results in a clitic pronoun with no double.
If instead the targeted DP is a full DP with a restrictor, it must
first be “reduced” to its D head alone as in (14b). Following reduction,
the higher copy (now just a D head) and the lower DP will both be
pronounced due to nonidentity, resulting in consistent clitic doubling,
as in Nanwang Puyuma (9) or Kapampangan (C. Richards 1971, Miri-
kitani 1972).

Baker (2016), Baker and Kramer (2016), and Sikuku, Diercks,
and Marlo (2018:398) furthermore propose that languages vary in the
availability of this “reduction” operation in (14b).5 If a full DP is
targeted for movement to the specifier of Aux/T but it cannot be
reduced to a D head to feed M-Merger, we propose that the entire
higher copy must be deleted at PF, resulting in the appearance of no
clitic doubling at all. This parameter setting thus yields a language
with clitic pronouns but no clitic doubling of full DPs, such as Squliq
Atayal and Tagalog.

With these assumptions in place, the generalization on possible
second-position clitic pronouns in (8) follows. First consider the deri-
vation of NAV, (13b). The pivot argument (such as a theme in Patient
Voice) and the nonpivot agent both occupy specifiers at the lower
phase edge. Thus, both are accessible for syntactic operations from
above such as clitic doubling. Next, consider the derivation of AV,
(13a). Here, the agent is the pivot and is the only DP at the edge of
the lower phase. Thus, the pivot agent is the only DP accessible for
syntactic operations from above. Nonpivot themes—which may bear
the same morphological case as nonpivot agents—remain within the
complement of the phase head in AV clauses and are inaccessible for
clitic doubling. If nonpivot agents occupied a position below the phase

5 Van Urk (2018) discusses the reduction of DPs to pronouns in a variety
of other constructions, also with consideration of more articulated DP struc-
tures. He similarly concludes that languages must vary in the availability of
this operation.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

418

S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

edge, (1b), they would be unable to be clitic-doubled like nonpivot
themes, contrary to fact.6

Under our proposal, both A¯ -extraction and clitic doubling involve
probe-driven movements (Chomsky 2000). An important difference
between these two processes is the specification of these probes as
seeking one goal or multiple goals. Individual probes may be parame-
terized in terms of whether they stop after finding one matching goal
or then continue, resulting in interaction with multiple goals (see, e.g.,
Hiraiwa 2001, Nevins 2011, Harizanov 2014, Deal 2015, Erlewine
2018, Foley and Toosarvandani 2019). The A¯ -probe in these languages
seeks one matching goal—the closest DP, necessarily the pivot—and
then stops. In contrast, the probe triggering clitic doubling in the lan-
guages discussed above seeks to interact with all accessible DP goals.7
This accounts for the ability of pivot and nonpivot agent DPs to be
simultaneously clitic-doubled, as shown in (12). The same has been
explicitly proposed for multiple clitic doubling targeting the same host
in Bulgarian: Harizanov (2014) claims that the head triggering clitic
doubling will “have a property which forces any goals within its c-
command domain (subject to additional locality constraints, of course)
to undergo movement” (p. 1066). This derives the contrast between
the pivot-only restriction on A¯ -movements attested in Philippine-type
languages and the behavior of clitic doubling, which can target both
pivots and nonpivot agents, but not nonpivot themes, which are inac-
cessible due to Phase Impenetrability.

Finally, we note that clitic doubling and A¯ -extraction cannot si-
multaneously target the same argument. This is observed in Kapam-
pangan in (15): the pivot DP ‘man’ is doubled by the third person
clitic pronoun (cid:2)ya in (15a), but when an argument in this position is
wh-moved, it is no longer clitic-doubled, as in (15b).

(15) Clitic doubling does not target A¯ -extracted DPs

a. E(cid:2)ya

masikan ing lalaki.

NOM man

NEG(cid:2)NOM.3SG strong
‘The man is not strong.’
b. Ninu ing e masikan?
who NOM NEG strong
‘Who is not strong?’
(Kapampangan: C. Richards 1971:258, 276)

Such facts are compatible with our account. Suppose the pivot is clitic-
doubled, following the process in (14), followed by A¯ -probing by C.
The A¯ -probe cannot attract the clitic pronoun, due to either some sort
of general freezing of the specifiers of Aux/TP (see, e.g., Rizzi and

6 Our proposal remains agnostic as to the precise mechanism by which
morphological case on DP arguments is determined. See, for example, Erle-
wine, Levin, and Van Urk to appear.

7 The alternative possibility, where Aux/T probes only once and thus
clitic-doubles only pivots, is attested in Isbukun Bunun, as we discuss in section
4.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

419

Shlonsky 2007) or an antilocality constraint (see, e.g., Erlewine 2016,
2019), as suggested by a reviewer.8 If C probes past the clitic pronoun
to move the pivot DP across the coreferential pronoun, a crossover
violation results (Postal 1971). See Baker and Kramer 2018 for much
relevant discussion of such configurations.

4 Conclusion and Discussion

The absence of second-position clitic pronominal forms of nonpivot
themes in Philippine-type languages follows from the organization of
the lower phase edge. Nonpivot themes occupy a VP-internal position
and are not visible to syntactic operations from outside of the lower
phase. In contrast, pivot arguments, regardless of thematic role, and
nonpivot agents occupy positions at the lower phase edge. Agents are
base-generated there; nonagent pivots move there. This asymmetry
between nonpivot agents and nonpivot themes is unexpected if agents
are generated within the lower phase and not at its edge.

By way of conclusion, in this final section we discuss an interest-
ing potential counterexample: the behavior of clitics in Isbukun Bunun.
Like the languages discussed so far, Isbukun Bunun has two clitic
pronoun series. One series is a nominative series, used for pivots.
However, the other—called the “default” series in Li 2010—marks
both nonpivot agents and nonpivot themes.

(16) a. Ludah-un(cid:2)ku’(cid:2)as.

hit-PV(cid:2)DFLT.1SG(cid:2)NOM.2SG
‘I hit you.’

b. M-adu’(cid:2)ik(cid:2)su’.

AV-like(cid:2)NOM.1SG(cid:2)DFLT.2SG
‘I like(d) you.’
(Isbukun Bunun: Li 2010:58–59)

In (16a), the clitic (cid:2)as marks the pivot theme and the default clitic
(cid:2)ku’ marks the agent. In (16b), (cid:2)ik marks the pivot agent, and the
default clitic (cid:2)su’ marks the theme.

Realizing the nonpivot theme as a clitic appears at first glance
to counterexemplify our generalization (8). However, further investi-
gation reveals that these default clitics are not second-position clitics;
thus, their behavior does not counterexemplify (8), which only applies
to second-position clitics. Default clitics always encliticize to the verb,
rather than appearing with any higher host. In this way, they contrast
with nominative clitics, which must appear in second position—for
example, encliticizing to negation in (17).

(17) a. Na(cid:2)ni’(cid:2)ik

ma-ludah(cid:2)mu’.
FUT(cid:2)NEG(cid:2)NOM.1SG AV-hit(cid:2)DFLT.2PL
‘I won’t hit you.’

8 Furthermore, if A¯ -probing occurs after M-Merger of the pronoun to

Aux/T in (14), its movement would violate the ban on excorporation.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

420

S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

b. Na(cid:2)ni’(cid:2)ik

ludah-un(cid:2)mu’.
FUT(cid:2)NEG(cid:2)NOM.1SG hit-PV(cid:2)DFLT.2PL
‘You won’t hit me.’
(Isbukun Bunun: Li 2010:102)

Our analysis for clitic pronouns in Philippine-type languages can
in fact be easily extended to this behavior. If, in Isbukun Bunun, the
host for clitic doubling of nonpivots is the phase head itself, we expect
both agent and theme arguments to be visible for the purposes of
clitic doubling with the default series.9 There is no intervening phase
boundary to block clitic doubling of the nonpivot theme.

For the sake of explicitness, we propose that both arguments in
(17) are visible to the clitic-doubling probe on the lower phase head,
resulting in “default” clitics, but that the clitic-doubling probe on Aux/
T probes only once (like the A¯ -probe on C), interacting with the pivot
but not with nonpivot agents.10 Combined with a rule that arguments
can only be clitic-doubled once per clause, in the highest possible
position,11 this proposal ensures the correct realization of a second-
position pivot clitic and a lower, verbal clitic for nonpivot arguments,
regardless of thematic role. The default clitics in Isbukun Bunun—at
first glance a counterexample to the generalization and approach devel-
oped here—thus can also be straightforwardly accounted for by our
proposal.

References

Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian lan-

guages. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.

Aldridge, Edith. 2008. Phase-based account of extraction in Indone-

sian. Lingua 118:1440–1469.

Aldridge, Edith. 2015. A Minimalist approach to the emergence of
ergativity in Austronesian languages. Linguistics Vanguard
1:313–326.

Aldridge, Edith. 2016. Ergativity from subjunctive in Austronesian

languages. Language and Linguistics 17:27–62.

Aldridge, Edith. 2017. Phi-feature competition: A unified approach to
the Austronesian extraction restriction. In CLS 52: Proceedings
of the 52nd meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by
Jessica Kantarovich, Tran Truong, and Orest Xherija, 1–20.
Chicago: University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society.

9 We assume that a clitic-doubling probe on a head can target its specifier,
as in Be´jar and Rezac 2009 and much subsequent work. This allows for the
phase head to clitic-double the agent in its specifier (1a). Alternatively, follow-
ing the approach to clitic doubling adopted above (14), an agent pronoun could
undergo M-Merger directly with the phase head.

10 We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
11 Kenyon Branan (pers. comm.) notes that this straightforwardly follows
from Kinyalolo’s Constraint (Kinyalolo 1991, Carstens 2005:253) as applied
to clitic doubling.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

421

Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Florian Scha¨fer.
2015. External arguments in transitivity alternations. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque
auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer.
Baker, Mark. 2016. On the status of object markers in Bantu languages.

Ms., Rutgers University.

Baker, Mark, and Ruth Kramer. 2016. Doubling clitics are pronouns:
Reduce and interpret. Ms., Rutgers University and Georgetown
University. http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/mabaker/clitics-are-pr
onouns-resubmitted.pdf.

Baker, Mark, and Ruth Kramer. 2018. Doubled clitics are pronouns:
Amharic objects (and beyond). Natural Language and Linguis-
tic Theory 36:1035–1088.

Be´jar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic In-

quiry 40:35–73.

Billings, Loren A., and Daniel Kaufman. 2004. Towards a typology
of Austronesian pronominal clisis. In AFLA 11: Proceedings
of the 11th meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics
Association, ed. by Paul Law, 15–29. Berlin: ZAS.

Blust, Robert. 2010. Review: The Austronesian languages of Asia and
Madagascar by Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmel-
mann. Oceanic Linguistics 49:302–312.

Blust, Robert. 2013. The Austronesian languages. Rev. ed. Canberra:

Asia-Pacific Linguistics.

Blust, Robert. 2015. The case-markers of Proto-Austronesian. Oceanic

Linguistics 54:436–491.

Carstens, Vicki. 2005. Agree and EPP in Bantu. Natural Language

and Linguistic Theory 23:219–279.

Chen, Victoria. 2017. A reexamination of the Philippine-type voice
system and its implications for Austronesian primary-level
subgrouping. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i.

Chen, Victoria, and Bradley McDonnell. 2019. Western Austronesian

voice. Annual Review of Linguistics 5:173–195.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step
by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Las-
nik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka,
89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in
language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.

Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English.

Syntax 8:81–120.

Coon, Jessica, Pedro Mateo Pedro, and Omer Preminger. 2014. The
role of case in A-bar extraction asymmetries: Evidence from
Mayan. Linguistic Variation 14:179–242.

Deal, Amy Rose. 2015. Interaction and satisfaction in phi-agreement.
In NELS 45: Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

422

S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

North East Linguistic Society, ed. by Thuy Bui and Deniz
O¨ zyãldãz, 1–14. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Gradu-
ate Linguistic Student Association.

Elbourne, Paul. 2001. E-type anaphora as NP-deletion. Natural Lan-

guage Semantics 9:241–288.

Elbourne, Paul. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2016. Anti-locality and optimality in
Kaqchikel Agent Focus. Natural Language and Linguistic The-
ory 34:429–479.

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2018. Extraction and licensing in Toba

Batak. Language 94:662–697.

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2019. Anti-locality and subject extrac-

tion. Ms., National University of Singapore.

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Theodore Levin. 2018. Clitic pro-
nouns and the lower phase edge. In Heading in the right direc-
tion: Linguistic treats for Lisa Travis, ed. by Laura Kalin,
Ileana Paul, and Jozina Vander Klok, 136–145. Montreal:
McGill University, McGill Working Papers in Linguistics.

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, Theodore Levin, and Coppe van Urk.
2017. Ergativity and Austronesian-type voice systems. In The
Oxford handbook of ergativity, ed. by Jessica Coon, Diane
Massam, and Lisa deMena Travis, 373–396. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, Theodore Levin, and Coppe van Urk.
To appear. The typology of nominal licensing in Austronesian
voice system languages. In AFLA 26: Proceedings of the 26th
meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Cheryl Lim. 2019. Bikol clefts and
topics and the Austronesian extraction restriction. Ms., Na-
tional University of Singapore.

Foley, Steven, and Maziar Toosarvandani. 2019. Agreement, locality,
and the syntax of pronouns: The Person-Case Constraint and
beyond. Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz.

Gallego, A´ ngel. 2008. Four reasons to push down the external argu-

ment. Ms., Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona.

Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung, and Lisa Travis. 1992. Spec of
IP and Spec of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10:375–414.
Harizanov, Boris. 2014. Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonol-
ogy interface: A-movement and morphological merger in
Bulgarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32:1033–
1088.

Harley, Heidi. 2017. The “bundling” hypothesis and the disparate func-
tions of little v. In The verbal domain, ed. by Roberta D’Ales-
sandro, Irene Franco, and A´ ngel Gallego, 3–28. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2002. Voice in western Austronesian: An

update. In Wouk and Ross 2002, 7–16.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

423

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia
and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In The Austrone-
sian languages of Asia and Madagascar, ed. by Alexander
Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, 110–181. London:
Routledge.

Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention
Constraint in Japanese. In HUMIT 2000: Proceedings of the
first Harvard-MIT Student Conference in Language Research,
ed. by Ora Matushansky, Albert Costa, Javier Martin-Gonza-
lez, Lance Nathan, and Adam Szczegielniak, 67–80. MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 40. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics.

Huang, Lillian Meijin, Elizabeth Zeitoun, Marie M. Yeh, Anna H.
Chang, and Joy J. Wu. 1999. A typological overview of pro-
nominal systems of some Formosan languages. In Selected pa-
pers from the Fifth International Conference of Chinese Lin-
guistics, ed. by Xu Wang, Fengfu Cao, and Jinfa Lian,
165–198. Taipei: Crane.

Keenan, Edward L., and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessi-

bility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8:63–99.

Keenan, Edward L., and Maria Polinsky. 1998. Malagasy (Austrone-
sian). In The handbook of morphology, ed. by Andrew Spencer
and Arnold M. Zwicky, 563–623. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Kinyalolo, Kasangati. 1991. Syntactic dependencies and the Spec-head
agreement hypothesis in KiLega. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA.
Kramer, Ruth. 2014. Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view
from Amharic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32:
593–634.

Landau, Idan. 2006. Chain resolution in Hebrew V(P)-fronting. Syntax

9:32–66.

Latrouite, Anja. 2011. Differential object marking in Tagalog. In AFLA
18: Proceedings of the 18th meeting of the Austronesian For-
mal Linguistics Association, ed. by Lauren Eby Clemens, Gre-
gory Scontras, and Maria Polinsky, 94–109. https://ir.lib.uwo
.ca/afla/aflaxviii/.

Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Lin-

guistic Inquiry 34:506–515.

Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic

Inquiry 39:55–101.

Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cam-

bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Li, Lilian Li-ying. 2010. Clitics in Nantou Isbukun Bunun (Austrone-
sian). Master’s thesis, National Chi Nan University.
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguis-

tic Inquiry 37:69–109.

Mirikitani, Leatrice T. 1972. Kapampangan syntax. Honolulu: Univer-

sity of Hawaii Press.

Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Multiple Agree with clitics: Person comple-
mentarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language and Lin-
guistic Theory 29:939–971.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

424

S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

Nissenbaum, Jon. 2000. Covert movement and parasitic gaps. In NELS
30: Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the North East
Linguistic Society, ed. by Masako Hirotani, Andries Coetzee,
Nancy Hall, and Ji-Yung Kim, 2:541–555. Amherst: Univer-
sity of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistic Student Associa-
tion.

Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Paul, Ileana. 1996. The Malagasy genitive. In The structure of Mala-
gasy, ed. by Matthew Pearson and Ileana Paul, 76–91. UCLA
Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20. Los Angeles: UCLA, De-
partment of Linguistics.

Postal, Paul M. 1966. On so-called “pronouns” in English. In Report
on the 17th annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and
Language Studies, ed. by Francis P. Dinneen, 177–206. Wash-
ington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Postal, Paul M. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rine-

hart and Winston.

Preminger, Omer. 2019. What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agree-
ment, head movement, and locality. Glossa 4(1), 13.
Pylkka¨nen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Rackowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and ex-
traction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36:565–599.
Richards, Charles. 1971. A case grammar of Pampangan. Doctoral

dissertation, UCLA.

Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi, and Ur Shlonsky. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction.
In Interfaces (cid:4) recursion (cid:2) language? Chomsky’s Mini-
malism and the view from syntax-semantics, ed. by Uli Sauer-
land and Hans-Martin Ga¨rtner, 115–160. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.

Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorpora-
tion, and defective goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ross, Malcolm. 2002. The history and transitivity of western Austrone-
sian voice and voice marking. In Wouk and Ross 2002, 17–62.
Ross, Malcolm. 2006. Reconstructing the case-marking and personal
pronoun systems of Proto Austronesian. In Streams converging
into an ocean: Festschrift in honor of Professor Paul Jen-kuei
Li on his 70th birthday, ed. by Henry Yung-li Chang, Lillian
Meijin Huang, and Dah-an Ho, 521–563. Taipei: Academia
Sinica, Institute of Linguistics.

Ross, Malcolm. 2009. Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: A reap-
praisal. In Austronesian historical linguistics and culture his-
tory: A festschrift for Robert Blust, ed. by Alexander Adelaar
and Andrew Pawley, 295–326. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Sabbagh, Joseph. 2016. Specificity and objecthood in Tagalog. Journal

of Linguistics 52:639–688.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

425

Schachter, Paul, and Fe T. Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sikuku, Justine, Michael Diercks, and Michael Marlo. 2018. Pragmatic
effects of clitic doubling: Two kinds of object markers in Lubu-
kusu. Linguistic Variation 18:359–429.

Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Phrase structure
and the lexicon, ed. by Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring,
213–276. Dordrecht: Springer.

Teng, Stacy Fang-ching. 2008. A grammar of Puyuma, an Austrone-
sian language of Taiwan. Doctoral dissertation, Australian Na-
tional University.

Torrego, Esther. 1988. A DP analysis of Spanish nominals. Ms., Uni-

versity of Massachusetts, Boston.

Travis, Lisa deMena. 2006. Voice morphology in Malagasy as clitic
left dislocation or Malagasy in Wonderland: Through the look-
ing glass. In Clause structure and adjuncts in Austronesian
languages, ed. by Hans-Martin Ga¨rtner, Paul Law, and Joachim
Sabel, 281–318. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Travis, Lisa deMena. 2010. Inner aspect. Dordrecht: Springer.
van Urk, Coppe. 2018. Pronoun copying in Dinka Bor and the copy
theory of movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
36:937–990.

Wolff, John U. 1996. The development of the passive verb with pro-
nominal prefix in western Austronesian languages. In Recon-
struction, classification, description: Festschrift in honor of
Isidore Dyen, ed. by Bernd Nothofer, 15–40. Hamburg: Abera.
Wouk, Fay, and Malcolm Ross, eds. 2002. The history and typology
of western Austronesian voice systems. Canberra: Pacific Lin-
guistics.

Zribi-Hertz, Anne, and Liliane Mbolatianavalona. 1999. Towards a
modular theory of linguistic deficiency: Evidence from Mala-
gasy personal pronouns. Natural Language and Linguistic The-
ory 17:161–218.

(Erlewine)
Department of English Language and Literature
National University of Singapore

mitcho@mitcho.com

(Levin)
Facebook Reality Labs

tedlevin@fb.com

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

5
2
2
4
0
8
1
9
1
1
6
8
3

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
3
7
4
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Download pdf